Voting behind Bars: Comparing Campaigns to Re-enfranchise Incarcerated Voters

• In Event: Communication, Engagement, and Political Participation

Abstract

Since the signing of their state constitutions, Maine and Vermont have allowed incarcerated people in the United States to vote by sending absentee ballots to the prison where they are held in custody (Manza & Uggen, 2004). All other states, however, prohibit voting while in custody and many states maintain restrictions even after a sentence has been served. However, Washington D.C. amended their constitution in 2020 to allow absentee voting from prison (Austermuhle, 2020), and in 2021, state legislation was introduced in Oregon to re-enfranchise incarcerated voters. The present study analyzes these legislative changes to develop an understanding of how felony re-enfranchisement is framed by various actors by looking at language, communication, and persuasion in public hearings about the policy. To do so, I combine philosophical principles of abolitionist feminism with the theoretical assumptions of Framing Theory to develop knowledge about policymaking language and discourse on a thus understudied phenomenon (i.e., incarcerated voting).
Abolitionist Feminism. As a paradigm, abolitionist feminism rests on the assumptions that the prison system and its related arms cannot be reformed (Schenwar & Law, 2020). Abolitionist feminism demands that we take a perspective rooted in community care, pushing back against punishment or isolation (Davis et al., 2022; Kaba 2021), including the punishment of rights revocation, as in the prohibition of incarcerated people from voting. Additionally, abolitionist feminism asserts that prisons are designed to uphold systems of power, such as capitalism and white supremacy, so those who are affected by the carceral system will inherently be disproportionately poor and people of color. This can be directly mapped onto the inequities in voting rights, such that a more disproportionately poor and racialized prison population means a disproportionately poor and racialized disenfranchised voting population. Succinctly, the abolitionist feminist framework demands that this work be critical of incarceration and to center the rights of incarcerated people.
Framing Theory. Using frames, communicators emphasize certain parts of a story by putting them in a context that promotes specific definitions and moral judgments (Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 2004). Frames can lead audiences to interpret stories differently (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2008), particularly as the emphasis of some parts of a story may lead to different responses, dependent on characteristics of the receiver (Taber & Lodge, 2006). Notably, Entman (1993) identified four functions of frames in the media — defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments, and suggesting remedies — which may be used simultaneously, in conjunction with each other, or in isolation. To date, little is known about the framing of prisoners in policy reform debates and the use of framing tools to develop this political rhetoric. The successful campaign in Washington D.C. to grant all citizens their right to vote and the ongoing (though stalled) policy debate in Oregon both present opportunities for studying this gap. Throughout the legislative process, communicators employ frames intentionally to persuade listeners. To unpack what these frames are and the purpose they serve, this study employs a content analysis of the campaigns and compares them across key framing characteristics and tools. In doing so, the study answers: how did public commenters frame re-enfranchisement of incarcerated voters in their respective campaigns, and how do these tools and outcomes compare across contexts?
Methods. This study uses a manual quantitative content analysis to collect data, examining statements submitted to Washington D.C. (n = 56) and Oregon (n = 151) legislative bodies as public comments on their respective proposed legislations. Testimonies from organization representatives, public witnesses, and bureaucrats were written or spoken in these hearings and entered into the public record. Coders identified language used to describe incarcerated people, the invocation of “democracy,” emotional and rational appeals (Brader, 2005; Kemp et al., 2013; Ridout & Searles, 2011), policy framing (Boydstun et al., 2013), and framing tools (Entman, 1993; Matthes & Kohring, 2008).

Author

• Courtney Darian Tabor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel